Tradeoffs and win-wins between large landscape conservation and wildlife viewing in protected areas

Hilary Byerly Flint; Aaron Joey Enriquez; Drew Bennett; Leslie Richardson; Arthur Middleton

doi:10.1111/csp2.70051

Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70268088

Tradeoffs and win-wins between large landscape conservation and wildlife viewing in protected areas

Hilary Byerly Flint·Aaron Joey Enriquez·Drew Bennett·Leslie Richardson·Arthur Middleton

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Wildlife conservation around protected areas is critical and costly, yet its beneficiaries—particularly protected area visitors who enjoy viewing wide-ranging wildlife—rarely contribute towards landscape-scale conservation. We characterize the importance of wildlife viewing in two U.S. protected areas: Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. We surveyed park visitors ( N = 991) and used the travel cost method to test whether changes in the viewing experience would justify support for visitor-funded conservation. We find that benefits from wildlife viewing are substantial and dependent on protecting wide-ranging species and maintaining their abundance. Large carnivores, particularly grizzly bears, are especially important to wildlife viewers, who are willing to pay more to visit the parks by about 50%. Additionally, we gauged support for three conservation fundraising mechanisms within parks: a mandatory fee, a voluntary fund, and a tax on goods and services. Overall, we find that species population declines could have a greater effect on visitation than that from imposing conservation costs onto visitors, which visitors largely support regardless of income or politics. Our results demonstrate tradeoffs between maintaining visitor experience quality and protected area visitation, with a potential win-win for conservation beneficiaries to contribute towards action at a scale necessary for biodiversity protection.

Explore related subjects

Conservation Science and Practice Article

Source-reported bounding extent: 42.63727140232976° to 45.04322153561924° latitude; -111.05566890277504° to -108.69188793988411° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Hilary Byerly Flint, Aaron Joey Enriquez, Drew Bennett, Leslie Richardson, Arthur Middleton. 2025-05-05. Tradeoffs and win-wins between large landscape conservation and wildlife viewing in protected areas. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.70051

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

Restoring elk in Minnesota: Landowner support for restoring an elk population

Public support is critical to successfully restore wildlife populations and avoid future human–wildlife conflict. We used a structural equation model (SEM) to analyze 2550 survey responses from landowners in northeast Minnesota to examine the influence of four psychological constructs on support for restoring a wild, free-ranging elk ( Cervus canadensis ) population in the region. Our model included perceived risk from elk, social trust in the state wildlife agency, perceived personal control over impacts from elk, and attitudes toward elk. Perceived risk, perceived personal control, and social trust each had a direct, significant impact on attitudes toward elk. Attitudes had a significant, direct effect on support for restoring elk, and perceived risk had a significant, indirect effect on support. Our model explained 66% of variability in support for restoring an elk population and 50% of variability in attitudes toward elk. We found abundant support among landowners to restore an elk population in northeast Minnesota, but continued effort will be necessary to maintain support when elk restoration occurs. Our findings in northeast Minnesota suggest messaging should focus on helping landowners cope with potential threats through improving their trust in the state wildlife agency (i.e., social trust) and ability to avoid negative outcomes from an elk population (i.e., personal control).

northeast Minnesota↗

USGS2026

Adaptive capacity of alpine fauna in Australia

Climate change is leading to rapid and unprecedented changes to Australia's alpine ecosystems. The impacts of these changes at a species level are not fully understood, making it challenging to holistically assess the impacts of a changing climate in these ecosystems. To address this gap, we combine a literature review with expert opinion to conduct individual adaptive capacity analyses for 29 species of Australia's alpine animals. We conduct these analyses using a published framework which encompasses key themes, such as life history, capacity for movement, genetic variation, and distribution. Our results highlight diversity in the adaptive capacity of Australia's alpine animals and suggest that climate change will impact even closely related species in surprisingly disparate ways. Our study also provides an example of how to overcome perceived data deficiency and support conservation practitioners with what is known. We have created an important resource for land managers in Australia's Alps that systematically integrates diverse data to provide insight into the mechanisms behind the vulnerability of some of Australia's most threatened species to climate change. The evidence this study collates should be considered in conservation planning to ensure species-level natural history information is included in decisions about management actions to mitigate climate change impacts.

Conservation Science and Practice↗

USGS2026

What we know about wildlife outcomes of the conservation reserve program: A meta-analysis

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is one of the most extensive private-land conservation programs in the United States, aimed at mitigating habitat loss and supporting biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Individual studies of CRP effects on wildlife report mixed results, necessitating a comprehensive synthesis. We conducted a meta-analysis and vote-counting assessment of 96 studies (1009 case studies, i.e., individual analyses of a wildlife response to a CRP predictor variable) to evaluate effects on wildlife density, occurrence, reproduction, habitat use, and species diversity. Formal meta-analyses were performed for wildlife density and avian nest success. We found CRP generally benefited wildlife, with vote counting indicating positive effects in 32% of all comparisons (i.e., including comparisons to any type of non-CRP land) and in 64% of comparisons to cropland. Formal meta-analysis indicated avian nest success was significantly higher on CRP lands compared to non-CRP lands, but CRP enrollment did not consistently increase wildlife density, likely due to species-specific and ecological factors we did not account for. The literature was strongly biased toward birds (90% of case studies), with limited research on mammals, invertebrates, amphibians, and reptiles. High heterogeneity in effect sizes suggests that variation in conservation practices, study methodologies, and ecological contexts plays a critical role in shaping measured wildlife responses to CRP. Our results demonstrate CRP provides important benefits to wildlife, particularly by enhancing avian reproductive success. However, variation in wildlife effects highlights the need for studies that incorporate more detailed information on CRP management practices and increased research on non-avian taxa. Addressing these gaps may provide additional information allowing for the implementation of improved conservation strategies and maximize CRP's ecological benefits in agricultural landscapes.

Conservation Science and Practice↗